The Fed Rightfully Believes That Protecting Goldman Is "In The Interest Of The U.S. Economy And The Interest Of The Public"

We would like to direct Your attention to this letter written some months ago by that one person who comes closest to being called Your "supervisor." Indeed, we are well aware that You, Mighty Majesty, are not accountable to anyone, on heaven, hell, purgatory or earth. Nonetheless, we assume You got this particular memo.

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

...

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

We were confused, Munificent Maestro, how in the context of President Obama's commendable pursuit for transparency, openness and public participation, should we read Your request for an appeal of the Bloomberg lawsuit (presented below in its entirety) based on the following premise:

[D]isclosure of the identity of the institutions that have borrowed from the Federal Reserve Banks as lenders of last resort or providers of emergency credit is likely to stigmatize the borrowers and to cause substantial competitive injury - whether or not they are experiencing financial difficulties - including the withdrawal of funding from the institution, an outflow of deposits, and a loss of public confidence.

We got lost, Esteemed Eminence, at the point where in Your wisened ways, You purport to disagree with President Obama's claim that the United States of America "will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a
system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration." Surely, Your Benign Benevolence must be mistaken as Your argument that "disclosure" equals a "loss of public confidence" conflicts diametrically with what our country's elected leader has stated in the past is his administration's primary goal. Does Your Honorable Highness purport to have an authority on par if not higher with a figure elected by the majority of roughly 330 million citizens of the United States of America? Or is it merely that in Your seasoned assessment of the situation You, Transient Tyrant, have so little faith in the ratiocination capacity of Your fellow countrymen that Your Felicitous Fabulousness presumes that You and You alone are capable of not only handling the truth, but deciding who else is privy to its dispensation.

Before we continue, rest assured Handpicked Holiness that we thoroughly agree with You. All the problems of this nation have and always will originate simply as a result of the general public becoming aware of what appears to be a massive criminal enterprise that occurs behind the scenes each and every day. After all, as another Evil Empire had a saying years ago, "The less they know, they better." If a multi trillion dollar crime has occurred in the woods and nobody heard it, it never really occurred. And to top off the list of sayings, when in doubt, Dubious Despot, deny, deny, deny.

Please do not for a minute assume, Delightful Dictator, that we, the American public, are not thoroughly grateful with Your repeated and escalating efforts to protect us from ourselves. After all, the last thing we need is information, understanding and responsibility. Best to keep all three of these in the realms of speculation, conspiracy and conjecture. If anything, we just request that You allow the ceiling on our collective credit cards to be raised by another 1,000,000%... as for the APR, we don't care: following in Your example, Prophetic Proselytizer, we have, all of us, decided never to pay off these credit cards. Ever.

Comment viewing options

But seriously, I don't trust the Repubs or the Dems, but has BHO stood up for anything he promised? In that way I think he is worse than GWB - at least with GWB, you KNEW you were getting someone whose main goal was to protect big business. I doubt many voted for BHO expecting him to bail out Wall Street.

This Fed issue is insane, they are sadly mistaken if they think this is going away. They are going to make this a campaign issue for 2010.

"The filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York today was authorized by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the Obama administration’s top courtroom lawyer, according to Charles Miller, a spokesman for Kagan."

It's been less than a year and I already don't listen to or read a single word that asshat has to say. I don't care if it's a national emergency, lalalalalala, I can't hear you. 2012 can't get here fast enough to suit me.

I find it useful when the President is giving a speech to record it and later play it in reverse so as to understand the true meaning of what he was saying. Similarly if he has prepared a memorandum, I find that reading it whilst holding it up in front of a mirror often provides insight into its true meaning. I suspect that the maestro understands these exegetic principles and is proceeding accordingly.

An amusing post, but the Fed would probably argue that it's independent of the Government, or at least the Executive branch.

The solution may actually be simple. Congress hardly ever repeals laws, so the Coin Act of 1793 is probably still on the books. And it states that the penalty for debauching the currency shall be death.

I think that the Fed seriously underestimates the implications of the judiciary and legislative assaults that are underway. If they fail, there will arise such a psychic scream as has not been heard before in America.

They are worried about the implications of disclosure, when it is the implications of a failure to disclose they should truly be worried about.

The internet, and the free and wide dissemination of information, has fatally exposed the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Central banks and their owners.

There is one thing, and only one thing IMO, that Americans are truly good at. What is that you ask? Why it is declaring loudly and proudly, "Fuck you!" consequences be damned. The sleeping giant has awoken, shaking off its long torpor, and god help those who stand in its way.

I advise the Fed to quietly and peacefully acquiesce before Hulk decides to smash. Quickly now Ben he's seen you, and he's coming your way.

Remember corporations have the legal rights of a person, the rules on percent ownership of a single public corporation may or may not be applied today (like so many other rules), but could be majority owned by a consortium of aligned separate legal entities.

The fed would not name all of the recipients of taxpayer funds. Price would not matter only if the funds were free (0% interest and printed not worked for) and you wanted to TAKE OVER THE WORLD. Thus, they are buying not based on fundamentals, not based on technicals, but on INFLUENCE. With a combined entity majority or major stake in corporations, they can influence the agendas of those entities and exert control and power over all boards, executives, and employees.

Of course with an increasing market, second equity offerings can be issued to turn around and pay off the bank loans off that would never have been paid back. Also, if banks have significant positions in corporations they could in effect outline the terms of their financial services in all future dealings with the corporation (in the best parternship interest of the shareholders).

Who owns these shares (%), where did they get the funds to buy, and why needs to be answered.

"On Sept. 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept. 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price.... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England." - 1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913

In a word, yes, this has happened a few times. For the record circa 1891 and circa 1929 and 2007.

"It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." -a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. Air Force Major by AP correspondent Peter Arnett

" Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " Eric Blair (better known as G. Orwell)

Not that I would advocate anyone taking literally the last few sentences of the post as applied to individual, personal instances, but for completeness' sake, here are some ways in which others have done such things:

The title of this diary is a quote from the Vietnam era that sums up for many the arrogance and pointlessness of American aggression in Asia two generations ago. It keeps coming to mind each time I read President Bush’s (paraphrased) statement this week: We had to nationalise the banks “to preserve the free market.”

I'm afraid I cannot help with the linking issue (though your last iteration seems to have worked) -- email marla at ZH or sacrilege at ZH.

But your words from nearly a year ago ring even truer now. The economy, "capitalism", free markets as we had known them are a thing of the past. How does one cope? How do you adapt?

I grow increasingly worried, as the "preservation of order" seems to have become a national security priority to the detriment of truth, justice and equality. Pretty soon (or already) the preservation of the illusion of the status quo is the objective of the governmnent's agenda, to hell with the values that must be destroyed to that end. The fumes will inevitably run out -- what then?

I'm beginning to feel the same way about "financial stability" as I do about the "war on terror". Both are marketing handles for massive frauds on the taxpayer for the benefit of an unaccountable elite.

I work in and around government folks all day and I can say unequivocally that the sense of arrogance and entitlement persists and will continue to persist until our enablers of deficit-spending decide otherwise. Frankly, I don't see another way.

As someone who grew up during the Cold War, it is very unsettling that we are now looking to the Red Chinese, Arabs and Russians to restore order to the Western political scene by withdrawing the credit to which we have become addicted. If they do, they will have proven Lenin absolutely correct. We will have sold them the rope with which they hang us.

Bingo TD. Comcast is in talk with GE about NBC. And you have front ran MSM by two days. Why do people even bother with MSM when they have ZH?. Does that mean we get to watch porn flicks now on cnbc,insted of the Anchorettes in sleeping gowns?

Baby steps, Mr. Durden, baby steps. You can't expect US to reveal EVERYTHING all at once. Transparency is something, WE, the Baby Boomer generation, feel highly threatened by and indeed, our M.O. is to take advantage of others by controlling information. WE are the leadership of this country, mind you. WE are the wealth generators (our critics might say bubble generators) Give us time. Give us time. We must build up our War Chests a bit more before we die.

At what point does billions and trillions in publicly funded subsidy to a "private company" merit an invocation of the "public interest" in the company's governance and behaviour in financial markets?

It seems to me that this is the fundamental issue which should be addressed in evaluating whether there is a public interest in examining the affairs of a private company which has engaged in a pattern of conduct which involves drawing on public funds via the Fed and subsidising its market trading with access to lender-of-last-resort and market-maker-of-last-resort public monies.

Bottom line: it ain't capitalism if the state intervenes to guarantee a pre-determined result. Once the state intervenes, there is a public interest in examining the policy grounds for intervention, the means of intervention and the results of intervention to assess whether the public interest has been served or betrayed.

One further illusion needs to crumble.These bank operators are not “Keynesians,” let alone economists, who believe in a money system for the common good.They’re crooks.They always were crooks.They intended to steal the money from the beginning.And they did it. They’ve just pulled off the longest and greatest money heist in the history of the world.

These money lords are no different from “Specs” O’Keefe and “Fats” Pino who originated the Great Brink’s Robbery, who met in secret, drew pictures, outlined the procedure, put on rubber Halloween masks and went out and stole the money. Both robberies were wonderfully and skillfully orchestrated—in secret.

“Transparency? We ain't got no transparency. We don't need no transparency! I don't have to show you any stinkin' transparency!”

It’s wrong to think any of these money manipulators are running a transparent system. Their henchmen, the Obamas and the so-called Keynesian economists, the hangers on, are just prostitutes along for the ride and the perks—they can’t even explain it to you.That’s why Greenspan talks with a mumble and Obama with a teleprompter.

This bank crime of the ages was planned and executed on purpose--out on an island, in secret, where only first names were used.Because they thought this would be a great system? Because they wanted “transparency”?Give me a break.They were thieves--not just national thieves but world-class thieves and they knew what they were doing.It was an international plot orchestrated by Paul Warburg who came over from Germany to mastermind this barefaced robbery. It was the original work of a seven-member gang, none of whom were ever arrested.P.Warburg didn’t just say to himself one day, I’ve got to come and tell the Americans about this wonderful “system”: it will work like a charm.He was no Marquis de Lafayette come to lend good services for the benefit of the Americans.No.He stole ashore instead with the greatest numbers racket ever conceived by man and said to himself, I’ve got a piece of it.

And on November 16, 1914, when the Federal Reserve banks were opened for business, Daddy Warbucks of the German banking house Kuhn, Loeb & Company, proclaimed:

“This day may be considered as the Fourth of July in the economic history of the United States.”

And so it was--for Paul, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb (a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France) and for the rest of the gang of seven who represented an estimated one-fourth of the total wealth of the entire world when they met on that bitterly cold night in 1910 at the New Jersey railway station on their way to Jekyll Island to come to an agreement on the structure and operation of a banking cartel—to create the blueprint for the Federal Reserve System—a blueprint that has finally brought the greatest economic engine of the world to a halt.

And, just as the first great Fed holdup was about to cause the engine to lurch and jerk and partially derail in 1929, John Maynard Keynes was atop his economic perch in London, exclaiming that the management of the dollar by the Federal Reserve Board was a “triumph” of man over money.

Patience, hope, and continued effort to spread the word is all i know to do since I am sure that if we don't stop this long standing source of evil (the privately held federal reserve and all their agents) , we won't have a county to love anymore.

Page 11 is interesting. They speak of "irreparable harm" and claim disclosure will "cause substantial competitive harm---whether or not they are experiencing financial difficulties".

Who got the money? Whom do they compete against? Each other. How is it possible that "substantial competitive harm" could occur if EVERY SINGLE FIRM in that competitive space got funds at a preferential rate? Is Goldman or JPM going to lose business to Keokuk Savings and Loan? It's Goldman vs. Morgan Stanley vs. JPM vs. Bank of America vs. Wells Fargo vs. Citibank...and every last one of them got help. This argument holds no water.

In point of fact there are two types of firms, both of which might be embarrassed by disclosure. The first are firms truly in deep trouble who have yet to receive enough gifts from Bernanke and Geithner to be on dry land again. The second are firms who have gotten plenty of taxpayer aid, but who continue to want to abuse the taxpayer so that they can fund their proprietary trading activities at the lowest possible cost. Borrowing from the long suffering taxpayer at near zero percent would surely prove embarrassing to a firm paying all time record bonuses and whose business is little more than a giant hedge fund.

Neither Bernanke nor his white shoe lawyers speak for me---a taxpayer---in claiming withholding of this information is either my desire or for my own good. Indeed, it is just the opposite. All taxpayers are entitled to know not only what firms might be on the brink (so that we may make our own decisions whether we wish to risk our money in these banks), but also what firms are riding the orchestrated ignorance constructed by the opaque Federal Reserve System.

We are either a democracy or we are not. Acceptance of Bernanke's appeal is an admission by the Judicial Branch of the goverment that the United States is an oligarchy.